The King Folette Discourse

[LeSellers]

How about addressing my complaint directly and fairly, instead of engaging in diversionary comments? Or you could just leave it alone.

No one likes a whiner. Especially not other whiners. And even more especially when the assumed cause for the whining is a voluntary thing.

Lehi

[mfbukowski]

Bukowski and Lehi,

How about addressing my complaint directly and fairly, instead of engaging in diversionary comments? Or you could just leave it alone.

Diversionary comments? Do you really want to go THERE and bring all that up again? I have spent dozens of comments trying to get you to avoid diversionary tactics.

And my goodness Rob, I would never leave YOU alone as long as you are here pursuing your agenda of using us as guinea pigs for your arguments.

I consider it my duty to show your fallacies so that when you post your latest, we will have ready responses to the misguided souls who think you actually know what you are talking about.

Edited November 7, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

Bukowski and Lehi,

How about addressing my complaint directly and fairly, instead of engaging in diversionary comments? Or you could just leave it alone.

How is your whine less of a diversionary comment than those responding to it.

There is only one way to ensure people don't respond to a particular comment and that is to not make it in the first place. If you don't want people discussing your whining, it is easily addressed by refraining from such.

[mfbukowski]

You know Rob, your complaints really do not ring true. You are here convinced that this is a battle with eternal consequences- at least I would hope you believe that or else your attempts to show us the error of our ways is totally disingenuous.

If it were within your power to destroy Mormonism, you would do it.

So in your mind, you get to battle for "keeps", doing what you think is God's will for your life, but we have to make nice-nice.

That is just incredible that you would have the nerve to take that stance.

Edited November 7, 2011 by mfbukowski

[Rob Bowman]

I see. If a Mormon complains that I have misunderstood or misrepresented him, that's fine; but if I make a similar complaint, that's "whining." There's one standard for Mormon members of the forum, and another for critics of the LDS religion. Got it. Good to know.

[LeSellers]

If a Mormon complains that I have misunderstood or misrepresented him, that's fine; but if I make a similar complaint, that's "whining."

No one mentioned your complaint of misrepresentation. What I (and Bp Bukowski) noted was your "it's wearying" claim.

My comment, and I believe his, was to point out that no one is forcing you to stick around for this wearying treatment. You have, within your own power, the ability to avoid this: don't read, post, or care about us any more. You are giving us heathens 'way too much power over you if you feel offended, or, in your terms, wearied.

Lehi

Edited November 7, 2011 by LeSellers

[ERayR]

Bukowski and Lehi,

How about addressing my complaint directly and fairly, instead of engaging in diversionary comments? Or you could just leave it alone.

But his comment is probably one of the most accurate in this thread.

[ERayR]

I see. If a Mormon complains that I have misunderstood or misrepresented him, that's fine; but if I make a similar complaint, that's "whining." There's one standard for Mormon members of the forum, and another for critics of the LDS religion. Got it. Good to know.

Rob this post remind me of a bully who complains when he finds his victim is not as helpless as he thought.

[mfbukowski]

I see. If a Mormon complains that I have misunderstood or misrepresented him, that's fine; but if I make a similar complaint, that's "whining." There's one standard for Mormon members of the forum, and another for critics of the LDS religion. Got it. Good to know.

Right.

Tell that to diglot and Mudcat. They both post here and have great discussions and are Evangelicals and valued members of the board. We have tons of ex-Mormons and critics here as well, but all address the issues and have actual discussions instead of whine-fests while peeking out from behind clouds of smoke and walls of mirrors.

Besides, I don't really see this as a "debate" board, but a "discussion" board, and it is obviously primarily for Mormons. All are welcome as long as they actually want to discuss and not take pot shots and then hide.

Just my opinion for what it is worth.

[KevinG]

I see. If a Mormon complains that I have misunderstood or misrepresented him, that's fine; but if I make a similar complaint, that's "whining." There's one standard for Mormon members of the forum, and another for critics of the LDS religion. Got it. Good to know.

I'm not buying it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HEbn-Hh8UTg

[Ares]

Regarding complaints about the behavior of other posters and their response:

The moderation team is not going to argue the point or hold your hands when it comes to the board guidelines. We assume most of our guests are intelligent enough to know the difference between dialogue and debate and how to post accordingly.

If you take a confrontational stance against someones beliefs don't act shocked if they are confrontational in return.

In regards to fairness; we have suspended, corrected or banned as many defenders of Mormonism as we have critics. We correct the behavior of posters when neccessary, we do not correct them for their beliefs.

Please get back on topic now...

[altersteve]

Steve,

You wrote:

You are mistaken about what I was saying. I was agreeing that LDS do not view intelligences as impersonal sparks of divinity. I was also stating that it appears to me that this was never Joseph Smith's view, as cobalt-70 was suggesting. So I was neither looking for nor claiming to have found a contradiction in Joseph Smith's teaching in this context.

Even when I'm saying something that most Mormons should have no trouble accepting, I get this sort of criticism. It's wearying.

My apologies. I misunderstood you.

[Rob Bowman]

Steve,

Thank you very much. I really appreciate it.

My apologies. I misunderstood you.

[Rob Bowman]

CV75,

Regarding the KFD, you asked me:

Which statement do you find the most offending?

If I had to choose, it would be Joseph's claim that God came to be God, i.e., that he has not been God from all eternity but became a God.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance and Mr. Bukowski,

Four days ago, I wrote the following:

But since you guys bring this up, can you give an argument for accepting your testimony that is not circular?

Unless I missed it, neither of you has answered this question. I would appreciate an answer, please.

Edited November 8, 2011 by Rob Bowman

[erichard]

Of all my posts, this is the one that you get annoyed with? The one where I quote a touching testimony by President Wilford Woodruff?

Cobalt, I thought your post was very good. FWIW.

[erichard]

I love the entire concept. But it seems some folks are desperate to hide the doctrine.

Joseph Smith:

"You have got to learn to become Gods yourselves, the same as all Gods before you have done."

"God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today, and ... God ... (were) to make himself visible ... if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image, and the very form as a man."

I mean, I love this doctrine. ...

Hi,

I found what you wrote exhilarating.

One cannot begin to even comprehend the KFD if they think only in Creedal terms. But the Bible itself (without creedal ideas being added to it in defiance of Revelations 22:18) has many quotes in perfect harmony with the KFD.

To me the key to understand it is the simple truth that "the elements are eternal". The building blocks of all earths and heavens are right here on our earth. There is nothing in heaven that was not first on an earth.

If I can believe that a man on this earth can become a joint-heir with Christ in the resurrection, then I can believe our Father in heaven was just such a man on a previous earth.

Richard

[ERayR]

CV75,

Regarding the KFD, you asked me:

If I had to choose, it would be Joseph's claim that God came to be God, i.e., that he has not been God from all eternity but became a God.

Why?

[Rob Bowman]

Ray,

The claim that God has not always been God, but became a God, completely and radically departs from the historic Jewish and Christian conception of God. It creates an entirely different worldview. It means that the ultimate, self-existent reality on which all things depend for their existence is not God but something else ("intelligence" is a common answer for what this is in LDS doctrine). It means that in some sense God himself is subject to laws governing reality that transcend God, that were there before he became a God (e.g., the "law of eternal progression"). It means a complete abandonment of the classic line of demarcation between Creator and creation that is common historically to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The linear view of cosmic history common to these theistic religions is transformed into a cyclical view of supracosmic history in which beings become Gods and rule worlds in which other beings eventually become Gods who likewise rule worlds in which other beings become Gods, ad infinitum. In so many ways, this idea that God was once not God but became a God separates LDS religion from historic Christianity (and really the whole theistic religious tradition) theologically more decisively than any other element of Joseph Smith's teaching. The Book of Mormon, restorationism, even polygamy -- small potatoes, really, compared to this doctrinal innovation.

Why?

[Vance]

Ray,

The claim that God has not always been God, but became a God, completely and radically departs from the historic Jewish and Christian conception of God.

No. It just conflicts with your false notions about their concept of God.

It creates an entirely different worldview.

Due to the apostasy, that was necessary.

It means that the ultimate, self-existent reality on which all things depend for their existence is not God but something else ("intelligence" is a common answer for what this is in LDS doctrine).

So?

It means that in some sense God himself is subject to laws governing reality that transcend God, that were there before he became a God (e.g., the "law of eternal progression").

So?

It means a complete abandonment of the classic line of demarcation between Creator and creation that is common historically to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

Yes, THAT apostate notion.

The linear view of cosmic history common to these theistic religions is transformed into a cyclical view of supracosmic history in which beings become Gods and rule worlds in which other beings eventually become Gods who likewise rule worlds in which other beings become Gods, ad infinitum.

So?

Both Genesis and John express "the beginning" of a cycle, not of eternity, because eternity has no beginning, but of a creation cycle.

In so many ways, this idea that God was once not God but became a God separates LDS religion from historic Christianity (and really the whole theistic religious tradition) theologically more decisively than any other element of Joseph Smith's teaching.

You mean the apostate notion of "historic Christianity".

The Book of Mormon, restorationism, even polygamy -- small potatoes, really, compared to this doctrinal innovation.

"innovation"? Nay, revelation.

[Vance]

Vance and Mr. Bukowski,

Four days ago, I wrote the following:

But since you guys bring this up, can you give an argument for accepting your testimony that is not circular?

Unless I missed it, neither of you has answered this question. I would appreciate an answer, please.

You seem to think that spiritual matters can be understood by the arguments of men, be they circular or not. You continually fail to understand what the following verses actually mean.

1 Cor 2:10-14

Gal 1:12

Eph 3:3

What you do is described in 2 Tim 3:7.

Tis sad to behold.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

So, is that a No?

You seem to think that spiritual matters can be understood by the arguments of men, be they circular or not. You continually fail to understand what the following verses actually mean.

1 Cor 2:10-14

Gal 1:12

Eph 3:3

What you do is described in 2 Tim 3:7.

Tis sad to behold.

[altersteve]

Rob,

Once again, Joseph wasn't teaching that God was once not God. He clearly taught that God the Father entered mortality to "lay down His life and take it back up again," and that Jesus received this power from His Father. This would suggest that the Father had the same power also. If the Father were a mere sinful man and not God, He could not have had this power. Joseph explained this in both the King Follett discourse and the Sermon in the Grove:

I wish I had the trump of an archangel; I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease forever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, elder Rigdon!) Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power." To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. The scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom, all the combined powers of earth and hell together, to refute it.

I want you to pay particular attention to what I am saying. Jesus said that the Father wrought precisely in the same way as His Father had done before Him. As the Father had done before? He laid down His life, and took it up the same as His Father had done before. He did as He was sent, to lay down His life and take it up again; and then was committed unto Him the keys. I know it is good reasoning.

This is why Joseph compared the Father's mortality to Jesus' when he said, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." To suggest otherwise misses the point completely. Other statements he made, such as the infamous "We have imagined that God was God from all eternity..." and "I am going to tell you how God came to be God" quotes, must be read in context and interpreted in light of the rest of this teaching. He was saying that God was not always as He is now, sitting in heaven with a physical body; not that God was once a sinful man. If that was the case, he would not have compared the Father's mortality to our own, not to Christ's.

The "great secret" that Joseph was revealing was not that God is "like us" in the same sense that Jesus Christ is "like us": He is "a man like one of [us]" and "in the image and very form of a man," and He is able to walk as He did with Adam, and talk with a man "as one man talks and communes with another." This is also true for Jesus Christ. He came to earth as "a man," but He was still God during and before this time. The "great secret," therefore, is that we're of the same kind or "species" as our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. We are "like" each other.

Furthermore, Joseph made it clear that he was showing this from the Bible. He pointed to the biblical teaching that the Son can do nothing except for what the Father has given Him the power to do. This, obviously, is a power which we clearly do not share, and it can thus be implied that we will not become God in the same sense that the Father and the Son are.

The claim that Joseph taught that God was a sinner on another world is weak.

[Rivers]

Rob,

Once again, Joseph wasn't teaching that God was once not God. He clearly taught that God the Father entered mortality to "lay down His life and take it back up again," and that Jesus received this power from His Father. This would suggest that the Father had the same power also. If the Father were a mere sinful man and not God, He could not have had this power. Joseph explained this in both the King Follett discourse and the Sermon in the Grove:

This is why Joseph compared the Father's mortality to Jesus' when he said, "God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did." To suggest otherwise misses the point completely. Other statements he made, such as the infamous "We have imagined that God was God from all eternity..." and "I am going to tell you how God came to be God" quotes, must be read in context and interpreted in light of the rest of this teaching. He was saying that God was not always as He is now, sitting in heaven with a physical body; not that God was once a sinful man. If that was the case, he would not have compared the Father's mortality to our own, not to Christ's.

The "great secret" that Joseph was revealing was not that God is "like us" in the same sense that Jesus Christ is "like us": He is "a man like one of [us]" and "in the image and very form of a man," and He is able to walk as He did with Adam, and talk with a man "as one man talks and communes with another." This is also true for Jesus Christ. He came to earth as "a man," but He was still God during and before this time. The "great secret," therefore, is that we're of the same kind or "species" as our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. We are "like" each other.

Furthermore, Joseph made it clear that he was showing this from the Bible. He pointed to the biblical teaching that the Son can do nothing except for what the Father has given Him the power to do. This, obviously, is a power which we clearly do not share, and it can thus be implied that we will not become God in the same sense that the Father and the Son are.

The claim that Joseph taught that God was a sinner on another world is weak.

This makes sense but how do you interpret this part of the Sermon in the Grove?

If Abraham reasoned thus -- If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also. Where was there ever a son without a father? And where was there ever a father without first being a son? Whenever did a tree or anything spring into existence without a progenitor? And everything comes in this way. Paul says that which is earthly is in the likeness of that which is heavenly, Hence if Jesus had a Father, can we not believe that He had a Father also? I despise the idea of being scared to death at such a doctrine, for the Bible is full of it.

This is where the whole infinite regression of gods idea comes from. I'm not sure what to make of it.

[altersteve]

This makes sense but how do you interpret this part of the Sermon in the Grove?

This is where the whole infinite regression of gods idea comes from. I'm not sure what to make of it.

It seems to me that Joseph was using his own logic with this and his own reading of the Bible. He later said that "it is good reasoning," so that tells me that this idea came from his own mind. Nevertheless, I'm not sure how he fit these ideas together, but we have to remember that he wasn't given a chance to clarify or expand upon this concept.